The Issue Whether Petitioner, Vanessa Brown, a member of a protected class, was denied rental of a room at the hotel called the Sleep Inn owned by Respondent, Capital Circle Hotel Company, on or about May 27, 2000, on the basis of her race (African-American) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of a protected class (African- American). Respondent was on May 27, 2000, and is the owner of the Sleep Inn located in Temple Terrace, Florida, which is a public lodging establishment. In the early morning hours of May 27, 2000, Petitioner was denied accommodations at the Sleep Inn. Cheryl Dodd was working as night auditor and desk clerk for Respondent on May 26, 2000, and May 27, 2000. At approximately 4:00 a.m., Petitioner entered the Sleep Inn with Frederich Mobley (also African-American) and asked to rent a room. Before Petitioner could complete her request, Dodd told Petitioner she was sold out. Dodd made no effort to check the Sleep Inn computer system or reservation card system to determine if a room was available before immediately interrupting Respondent and telling her that no room was available and no room would be available until the next day in the afternoon. Petitioner and Mobley left the lobby of the Sleep Inn and returned to the parking lot. In the parking lot, Mitchell Jamerson was wiping down his car, because he could not sleep. Jamerson (an African-American) struck up a conversation with Mobley and Respondent. He asked the two of them if they had been told there were no rooms available. Jamerson told them that he was with a softball team and four of his team members had called to tell him they had had car trouble, would not be able to get to the motel that night, and that their rooms would not be needed. About ten minutes after Petitioner left the hotel lobby with Mobley, a Caucasian male entered the hotel lobby and came back out. Jamerson spoke to the gentleman, and he said he had just rented a room for him and his wife for the night, without a reservation. Jamerson accompanied Petitioner and Mobley back into the lobby. Petitioner asked Dodd why she could not have a room when a room had just been rented to the Caucasian male. Dodd said she had given the Caucasian male a room with a cot. Petitioner asked why she was not offered that room. Dodd told Petitioner that she did not think they would want a room with a cot and that there were no other rooms available. Dodd told Petitioner that she (Petitioner) could speak to the manager the next day, and gave her the card of John C. Walters. The time of the end of Petitioner's second visit to the lobby was 4:10 a.m. on May 27, 2000. At approximately 12:00 a.m., Jamerson had gone to the front desk and told the desk clerk, Dodd, that three rooms reserved by his team would not be needed that night because his team members had had car trouble in Wildwood. Jamerson and his team (other than the four mentioned above), including both African-Americans and Caucasians, had checked in at approximately 7:30 p.m. on the evening of May 26, 2000. The rooms they were given were missing towels. During the registration and when asking for towels, they believed they were treated rudely. Jamerson stated that the clerk on duty at 12:00 a.m. midnight and at 4:00 a.m. on May 27, 2000, was the same person at the desk when he checked in with his team at 7:30 p.m. on May 26, 2000. Dodd testified that she came on duty at 11:00 p.m. that night for an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. However, John C. Walters, the manager of the Sleep Inn, stated that Dodd often helped out during shifts other than the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Neither Dodd nor Walters could identify who was on shift at the hotel for the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift that night. Dodd, contrary to the testimony of Jamerson, Petitioner, and Mobley, said Petitioner came into the hotel both times with two men. Dodd also said that she had checked in two sets of parents and two African-American females into two rooms at approximately 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. She stated that the individuals had reservations and were parents of members of the baseball team. Jamerson stated that his team was the only team in the hotel, that he knew the teams in the competition that were to attend and that all the teams were comprised of adult women. No parents of his team stayed at the hotel on May 26, 2000, or May 27, 2000. Dodd's testimony on this incident is not credible. Dodd testified that she was running the night audit at the time Petitioner and Mobley entered the hotel, and could not check whether a room was available. Dodd admitted that she did not make that information known to Petitioner or Mobley. Dodd testified that she had started running the audit sometime between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. that night, as was her practice, and that the audit took one to one and a half or two hours to run. However, Walters testified that he was not there the night of May 26, 2000, or May 27, 2000, but the audit took about 45 minutes. Dodd testified that she had had a gentleman call in to cancel a room because he had had car trouble. She testified that the gentleman had called approximately 30 to 45 minutes after Respondent and Mobley left the lobby. She said she told the gentleman that called that she would try to rent out the room, and if she could, she would not bill him even though according to policy she should. She then testified that the Caucasian male to whom she rented the room entered the lobby approximately 15 minutes later. Dodd testified that when she had a reservation and the person called in to cancel after 6:00 p.m. she would bill that client, but would rent out the room if possible. She said she could check people in and out while the audit was running. This testimony is not credible. Robert Bland testified that the policy of Respondent was to bill the customer who had a reservation if they canceled after 6:00 p.m. and not to rent the room out. The policy was based on the fact that the customer was being billed for the room and had a right to have that room available for him/her whether or not anyone else appeared to ask for the room. Bland presented a composite exhibit of the driver's license photographs of 14 African-Americans who rented rooms between May 10, 2000, and May 28, 2000. Bland could not confirm whether or not that was all the African-Americans who had rented rooms in the month of May or just all between the period of May 10, 2000, and May 28, 2000. Bland stated that all computer records of the registrations and other records other than the driver's license photos he presented for the period of May 2000 had been destroyed on a hard disk that had been damaged. Of those driver's licenses produced to demonstrate that the hotel did provide rooms to African-Americans, seven of those driver's licenses belonged to members of Jamerson's baseball team who had signed in on May 26, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. after Dodd was on duty. Jamerson's team had made reservations through one party by telephone and no identification had been made at the time of the reservations of their ethnic background. Bland could not state who had accepted the reservations of the African-Americans identified by driver's license photographs who were not members of Jamerson's team. Bland could not state that he knew that Dodd had ever rented a room to any African-American other than Jamerson's team members, who had arrived with prior reservations. Bland stated that Dodd had been given a new employee manual which was developed after Bland took over as Director of Operations. This was sometime after Dodd had actually started work at the Sleep Inn. No training was given to Dodd or any other employee on that manual. The manual states that no one should discriminate on the basis of any categories of discrimination. No other information that was provided indicated that Bland could verify that Dodd had read the manual. Dodd stated that she was provided an Employee Manual which warned against discriminating against minorities, and she did know from working in the hospitality industry that she should not discriminate. Dodd further testified that no one at the Sleep Inn asked her, suggested to her, or implied to her that she should give preferential treatment to Caucasians over African- Americans. Dodd specifically testified that at the time Petitioner came into the Sleep Inn, she was running the night audit of the motel on the computer and that to her knowledge no rooms were available at that time. Dodd further testified that early after Petitioner left the lobby, a room became available, that she was not aware Petitioner was waiting in the parking lot, and that the next prospective guests to enter the motel were a Caucasian couple. Walters testified that at the Sleep Inn, while he was there he rented to anyone who could rent a room. His purpose was to place "heads in beds."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her race (African-American); Awarding Petitioner $500 in compensatory damages; Issuing a cease and desist order prohibiting Respondent from repeating this practice in the future; and A reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen F. Baker, Esquire Stephen F. Baker, P.A. 800 First Street South Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tricia A. Madden, Esquire Tricia A. Madden, P.A. 500 East Altamonte Drive, Suite 200 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a restaurateur, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners, who are African-Americans, by refusing to serve them based upon race.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 2001, Petitioners Veronica King and Walter King (the “Kings”), who were then on vacation in Miami Beach, Florida, decided to eat dinner at La Playa de Varadero Restaurant (“La Playa”), a Cuban restaurant near their hotel.2 They entered the restaurant some time between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. Though the dining room was full of patrons, there were a few empty tables. The Kings seated themselves. The Kings reviewed the menus that were on the table and conversed with one another. They waited for a server, but none came promptly. After waiting about 10 or 15 minutes, Mrs. King signaled a waitress, who came to their table and took their drink and food orders.3 The waitress brought the Kings their drinks without delay. The food, however, did not appear, and the Kings grew increasingly impatient and irritated. It seemed to the Kings, who are African-Americans, that other customers——none of whom was black——were being served ahead of them.4 After about a half an hour or so, having yet to be brought food, the Kings decided to leave without eating. On the way out of the restaurant, the Kings paid the cashier for their drinks. They complained to the cashier about the slow service and expressed to her their dissatisfaction at having waited so long, and in vain, for their meals.5 The Kings perceived that the cashier and other employees, including their waitress who was standing within earshot, were indifferent to the Kings’ distress. Ultimate Factual Determinations At the material time, La Playa was a “public food service establishment” within the reach of Section 509.092, Florida Statutes, and hence subject to liability for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that La Playa refused to serve, or otherwise unlawfully discriminated against, the Kings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Kings’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Leneve Plaisime (“Plaisime”), whose country of origin is Haiti, was employed as a busboy and room service attendant at the Marriott Key Largo Bay Resort (“Marriott”)1 from 1995 to 1997. On September 13, 1997, upon returning to work after a vacation of several weeks, Plaisime was fired by a manager named Eric Sykas who said to him: “There is no job for you because the owner says he’s not interested in Haitians.”2 This statement was overheard by a co-worker of Plaisime’s named Fito Jean, who testified at the final hearing, corroborating Plaisime’s account.3 In around the middle of October 1997 (approximately one month after his discharge), Plaisime found a new job at Tak Security Corporation (“Tak”). Evidence introduced by Plaisime shows that he earned $7,862.52 at Marriott in 1997, which reflects an average monthly wage of about $925. Had he worked the entire year at Marriott, Plaisime would have earned a total of approximately $11,100. In contrast, working for Tak in 1998 Plaisime earned $11,396 (or approximately $950 per month)——a 2.7% increase in his annual income. There is no evidence showing what Plaisime’s likely income would have been in 1998 had he remained in the employ of Marriott. Ultimate Factual Determinations Marriott discharged Plaisime because of his national origin. Thus, Marriott committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The actual economic loss that Plaisime suffered as a result of Marriott’s unlawful discrimination against him was one month’s pay, or $925.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order declaring that Marriott discharged Plaisime on the basis of his national origin, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes; prohibiting Marriott from committing further such violations; and awarding Plaisime $925 to relieve the effects of the unlawful discrimination that Marriott perpetrated against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Barbara Robinson, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Attractions Lodging Leisure, Inc., d/b/a All Guest Services, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner requested this evidentiary hearing to prove her allegation that All Guest discriminated against her based on her age, national origin, and race. At the final hearing, Petitioner described herself as “a black Jamaican female over the age of forty.”4/ All Guest operates a tourism business in Orlando, Florida. Its business consists of placing sales representatives, or “concierges,” in hotel lobbies throughout the Orlando area. These concierges assist hotel guests by promoting and selling theme park tickets, answering questions about local attractions, and generally helping the guests feel happy about their stay. All Guest currently employs over 150 concierges in 75 hotels across Orlando. All Guest hired Petitioner as a concierge in October 2012. All Guest assigned Petitioner to work in a specific hotel. Petitioner was 48 years old at the time All Guest hired her. Petitioner worked for All Guest from October 2012 until May 2018. By all accounts, Petitioner was a dependable worker with no noted deficiencies in her job performance. Testimony at the final hearing established that Petitioner was qualified to perform her duties as a concierge, and All Guest was pleased with her work. Petitioner remained in the position of concierge during her five years with All Guest. Beginning as early as 2013, however, Petitioner became increasingly disenchanted by what she perceived to be All Guest’s preferential treatment of younger, white employees. At the final hearing, Petitioner recounted how she desired, but was not considered or selected for, several promotion opportunities. She complained that All Guest was promoting younger individuals who were not more qualified that herself. To support her claim that All Guest (unlawfully) failed to promote her, Petitioner described the following incidents: All Guest promoted Schuyler McVicker to a Team Lead position within six months of his hiring, instead of offering the position to Petitioner. Mr. McVicker is a white male who is younger than Petitioner. All Guest promoted Jenn Janasiewicz to a Team Lead position for which Petitioner was not considered. Ms. Janasiewicz is a white female who is younger than Petitioner. In the summer of 2017, All Guest filled a Concierge Sales Manager position. Petitioner complained that All Guest did not approach her about applying for the opening. Petitioner also identified a position that All Guest filled with Andrea Romero. Like Petitioner, Ms. Romero is over the age of forty. However, she is approximately six years younger than Petitioner. Petitioner asserted that she gave All Guest a lot to be happy about. Ticket sales consistently increased through her efforts. All Guest, however, never approached her about a promotion. Petitioner felt ignored, overlooked, and under- appreciated by All Guest’s failure to acknowledge her strong work ethic, as well as her contributions to its business. Petitioner declared that she deserved advancement based on her performance. Further, Petitioner never received a raise during her time with All Guest. Petitioner claimed that those individuals who All Guest promoted received higher wages than she did. (At the final hearing, no proof was offered establishing the actual amount of the other employees’ pay.) As Petitioner became increasingly demoralized by her stagnant job status and low pay, in the latter part of 2016, she began looking for other employment. Ultimately, on May 28, 2018, Petitioner resigned from All Guest to accept a job that offered better financial opportunities. Armando Vazquez, All Guest’s current General Manager, testified at the final hearing. Initially, Mr. Vazquez commented that Petitioner was a quality employee and a good concierge. Mr. Vazquez remarked that Petitioner did a great job working with her customers. Mr. Vazquez explained that Petitioner’s position as concierge afforded her three avenues for “promotion.” First, Petitioner could transfer to a larger hotel with more guests to whom she could market and sell park tickets (thus receiving larger commission payments). Second, Petitioner could be promoted to a Team Lead position. Third, Petitioner could advance into a management position. Mr. Vazquez explained that in All Guest’s business structure, a Team Lead essentially handles day-to-day operations. A manager, on the other hand, is involved in issues of greater complexity, including business strategy and planning. All Guest employs more Team Leads than managers. Therefore, Team Lead positions become available more frequently than managerial positions. Despite the fact that All Guest was pleased with Petitioner’s performance, Mr. Vazquez testified that All Guest did not consider Petitioner for promotion opportunities for several reasons. First, during her five years with the company, Petitioner never expressed to anyone at All Guest, including Mr. Vazquez, that she was interested in a promotion. Therefore, All Guest was not reasonably aware that Petitioner desired to advance beyond her concierge job. Mr. Vazquez elaborated that during Petitioner’s employment, All Guest did not routinely post or publish specific promotion opportunities, except on one occasion. In June 2017, Mr. Vazquez sent out an e-mail to company employees announcing an open managerial position and articulated that, “If you are interested . . . please contact me immediately.” Petitioner did not apply for the position. Neither did she communicate her interest in the opening with anyone in All Guest management. As a result, All Guest did not consider her for the managerial position.5/ Secondly, All Guest was concerned with the manner in which Petitioner interacted with her coworkers, Team Leads, and managers. Mr. Vazquez expressed that Petitioner was not a “team player.” He testified that, on occasion, Petitioner’s treatment of her coworkers was disrespectful and insubordinate. Mr. Vazquez further relayed that Petitioner did not take criticism well. At the final hearing, Mr. Vazquez described several instances when All Guest felt that Petitioner’s conduct was less than satisfactory, including: November 10, 2014: Petitioner’s e-mail exchange with management. Mr. Vazquez pointed to Petitioner’s confrontational and impertinent tone. September 27 and 28, 2016: Petitioner’s e-mail communication with Team Lead Ricardo Bazan. Petitioner’s comments prompted Mr. Bazan to write, “I find your email to be rude and disrespectful.” October 13, 2016: Petitioner’s e-mails to Mr. Vazquez and Rick Schiebel (Director of Sales) regarding Petitioner’s request for time off. Petitioner’s e-mails caused Mr. Schiebel to reply, “Why do you have to be so negative and nasty to our team, including me?” and “I expect you to treat all managers and leads with dignity and respect.” October 18, 2017: Petitioner e-mailed Mr. Vazquez demanding that her manager must have “a valid REASON to come to [her] site to discuss any work related information, it is unacceptable for him to tell me he will be sitting down in my work site space to work on his laptop.” November 19, 2017: Through e-mail, Concierge Manager Andrea Romero reported a conversation with Petitioner in which Petitioner exclaimed that Mr. Vazquez “should go to management classes because he does not know how to run this company.” Finally, Mr. Vazquez asserted that Petitioner had issues with tardiness, as well as refused to commit to working at least one evening shift a week. (At the final hearing, Petitioner conceded that she was occasionally late for work. But, she adamantly denied that she had any pattern of tardiness, or ever failed to show up at all. All Guest did not refute Petitioner’s claim that All Guest never imposed or recorded any formal discipline on Petitioner for these alleged deficiencies in her work performance.) Based on the above reasons, Mr. Vazquez maintained that All Guest was neither inclined nor motivated to extemporaneously promote Petitioner to a higher position during the time she worked with the company. Regarding Petitioner’s complaints that younger coworkers were promoted instead of her, Mr. Vazquez offered several justifications. Mr. Vazquez explained that All Guest selected Mr. McVicker for a Team Lead position because his training matched All Guest’s business needs. Specifically, Mr. McVicker knew how to process transactions from the travel website Expedia, which distinguished him from Petitioner and others. Further, Mr. McVicker was a supervisor at his prior employment which qualified him to assume a part-time manager position with All Guest. Similarly, All Guest promoted Ms. Janasiewicz because her skill set matched All Guest’s business needs in a way that Petitioner’s did not. Finally, Mr. Vazquez explained that Ms. Romero had previously worked with All Guest for a considerable length of time, then resigned. When Ms. Romero subsequently expressed interest in returning to the company, All Guest believed that she was an excellent candidate for a managerial position given her prior experience and skills. Mr. Vazquez argued that Petitioner left All Guest on her own accord (for a better job opportunity), not because All Guest forced her to resign. Mr. Vazquez relayed that, prior to Petitioner leaving All Guest, he received a telephone call from a prospective employer in the hospitality industry who requested an employment reference. Mr. Vazquez testified that he provided Petitioner a positive reference. Mr. Vazquez denied that All Guest made any promotion decisions or refused to consider Petitioner’s advancement in the company, based on her age, race, or national origin. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that All Guest discriminated against Petitioner based on her age, race, or national origin. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that All Guest committed an unlawful employment action against her in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Barbara Robinson, did not prove that Respondent, All Guest, committed an unlawful employment practice against her; and dismissing her Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact From December 10, 1982, until the present, the Respondent Knoxon Motel, located at 7411 Northeast Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a motel business and holds license no. 23-08193H. The Knoxon Motel is located in an area of Miami which is known to be a place where prostitution is open and widespread. This condition has existed for approximately 12 to 13 years. Of the numerous motels and apartments in the area, the Knoxon has presented one of the biggest problems for law enforcement officers in their attempts to stop prostitution activities along Biscayne Boulevard. It is a common sight to see prostitutes flagging customers from the street and walking back and forth in front of the Knoxon waiting for prospective customers to drive by. The owner of another motel across the street from the Knoxon, Aaron Manes, has lost customers as a result of prostitutes following them into his motel in search of business. The problem is so serious that a unit of Mane's motel cannot be rented because of the noise that comes from the Knoxon. Manes has called the police over the past year at least once a day with complaints regarding prostitutes around the Knoxon, but so far has been unable to permanently solve the problem. The management of the Knoxon has been warned by police officers regarding prostitution activities at the Knoxon following the arrest of various females in and around the premises. The prostitutes who frequent the area around the Knoxon typically do not rent rooms themselves but instead use a go- between such as a pimp to secure a place to meet customers. Prostitutes have been observed standing in doorways and in front of open doors at the Knoxon partially and totally nude. This activity has been visible from the street. The owners of the Knoxon acknowledge that prostitution is a serious problem in the area but denied that their problems were any worse than other motels in the area. Management of the Knoxon considered installing surveillance equipment but decided against it due to a $5,000-$6,000 cost. Given the undisputed prostitute problem in the area, what has been openly observed at the Knoxon, and what had been told to management by police officers, the Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that a serious prostitution problem existed at the motel. Despite such knowledge, specific and substantial steps were not undertaken to solve the problem. The south side of the Knoxon, which is not visible from the manager's office but is the focal point of the building from the street, has been openly utilized by prostitutes without any apparent fear of detection by the Knoxon's management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's hotel license no. 23-01893H be suspended for one year subject to the condition that upon the Division of Hotels and Restaurants' being assured that adequate steps have been taken to prevent the use of the premises of the Knoxon for the purpose of prostitution, the suspension would be lifted. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-8675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to unlawful discrimination in a public accommodation by Respondent, as alleged in the Amended Public Accommodation Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on July 30, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rungvichit Yongmahapakorn, was hired by Respondent as an internal auditor in December 1998, then was promoted to vice president of accounting and finance in April 1999. While she worked for Respondent, Petitioner was provided room and board at the hotel. Her employment was terminated by Respondent on May 30, 2003. The circumstances of her termination are not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, Amtel Group of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Ramada at Amtel Marina, owns and operates a 24-story full service hotel in downtown Fort Myers, Florida, overlooking the Caloosahatchee River. The hotel offers over 400 rooms and suites to guests. Petitioner testified that in May 2003, she visited her native Thailand. She returned to Fort Myers on June 3, 2003, and proceeded to Respondent's hotel, where she learned of her termination. Petitioner testified that the notice of her termination was posted on the door of Room 411, a room dedicated to staff of the hotel in which she had lived for several months. The notice also informed her that she must vacate the hotel's premises immediately. Having nowhere else to go and wishing to have some time to assess her options, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to stay as a paying guest of the hotel. She also complained of mildew in Room 411 and asked for a different room. Hotel staff showed her Room 1621, a non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. The standard rate for this suite was $129.00 per night. During the month of June, the rate actually charged for this room ranged from $89.00 to $119.00, depending on demand. Petitioner rejected Room 1621 claiming that the furniture was dirty and scratched, and the carpet needed cleaning. Ginger Eodice, director of Housekeeping for the hotel, personally cleaned the room. Petitioner did not approve of Ms. Eodice's work. Hotel staff then showed Petitioner Room 1613, another non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. Petitioner claimed that the window screens in this room were dirty and demanded that hotel staff show her another room. Petitioner was told that she could have her choice of Rooms 411, 1621, and 1613. Ms. Eodice testified that all three of the rooms were up to Ramada standards of cleanliness and in good repair. Rooms 1621 and 1613 were provided without incident or complaint to hotel guests before and after Petitioner's stay in the hotel. Petitioner refused to select a room. She was upset and became increasingly loud in the hotel lobby. Hotel staff attempted to mollify her in order not to create a scene in front of other guests, but Petitioner would not calm down. Den Chinsomboon, who was then a manager at the hotel, told Petitioner that she had to choose a room or be escorted from the hotel property. Petitioner continued her tirade, and Mr. Chinsomboon ordered a front desk employee to call the Fort Myers Police Department. The police arrived and told Petitioner that she had to select a room or leave the premises. Petitioner then calmed down and chose to stay in Room 1613. Petitioner paid in advance for ten days' stay in the room totaling $646.10. Upon her checkout on June 12, 2003, Petitioner received a full refund of $646.10 from the hotel. No witness offered any first-hand explanation for the low rate charged or the reason for the full refund. Kevin Matney, the hotel manager who made these decisions, no longer works for Respondent and did not testify at the final hearing. Petitioner testified that, while she was a guest in Room 1613, the hotel's engineering staff used pass keys to enter the room without her permission. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that the engineering staff came to the room at her request to change a light bulb, but she still maintained that they entered without knocking. Several staff members testified that Ramada's firm policy was for staff to knock twice on a guest's door before using the pass key to enter. Petitioner offered no evidence that hotel staff discriminated against her because she was Asian, Thai, or because she was female. The evidence established that the hotel's owners are Thai, as were several other employees at the time. She contended that Mr. Chinsomboon's actions were motivated by the "normal" Thai male's tendency to discriminate against Thai females, but offered no firm evidence to support this bare assertion. Petitioner attempted to show that two white male employees were treated differently after their employment was terminated. At most, Petitioner was able to show that one of these terminated employees was later allowed to hire out the hotel's banquet facilities for a wedding reception. This can hardly be termed disparate treatment, given that Petitioner was allowed to stay at the hotel without charge for ten days after she was terminated. Petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment in the fact that the hotel summoned the police to evict her because she complained about the condition of the rooms she was offered. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent's employees called the police because Petitioner was causing a disturbance and was refusing to select a room. Once Petitioner selected a room, she stayed at the hotel for nine nights without further incident and was not charged for her stay. The evidence established that Petitioner had lived at the hotel since 1998 without complaining about the cleanliness or general repair of her rooms. The evidence established that Petitioner was irate over her termination and that her anger caused her to make unreasonable demands regarding the conditions of the rooms. Hotel staff attempted to satisfy Petitioner's demands, if only to prevent a loud confrontation in the hotel's lobby. There was no credible evidence that any employee of the hotel behaved in a manner that could be termed discriminatory against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., denied Petitioner full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at its place of public accommodation, in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction Petitioner is an African-American female who resides in the State of Missouri, who visited Orlando, Florida, in June 2011, and who had a reservation for accommodations at Lake Eve Resort beginning on June 24, 2011. Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., was the owner of Lake Eve Resort, located at 12388 International Drive, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner arrived in Orlando on June 17, 2011, where she stayed at the Hilton Grand International Resort (Hilton Grand) with her immediate family. Her reservation at the Hilton Grand ended on June 24, 2011, when she had reservations at the Lake Eve Resort (Resort) to join her extended family on the occasion of the Boss-Williams family reunion. On June 22, 2011, Petitioner traveled to the Resort to visit with her extended family who had arrived the previous day. When Petitioner entered the lobby of the Resort, she was met by two police officers and two women who did not immediately identify themselves. One of the police officers asked her if she was with the Boss-Williams family reunion. Petitioner inquired why she was being asked if she was with the family reunion, and was told that her party was being evicted. One of the two women with the officers, later identified as Lisa Catena, a Resort manager, asked Petitioner her name, and instructed her staff to cancel Petitioner’s reservation. Thereafter, Petitioner made several calls to members of her extended family to inform them of this turn of events. She first called her sister, Boniris McNeal, who was not on-property at the time, informed her of the eviction, and told her to return to the Resort. Next, Petitioner called her cousin, Denise Austin, who was also off-property at the time, informed her of the eviction, and told her to return to the Resort. Petitioner spent the next several hours in the lobby of the Resort talking with various family members as they returned to the Resort, or came through the lobby from other parts of the Resort, and were told they were being evicted, and waiting with family members while Resort staff worked to reverse credit-card charges and refund monies paid for room reservations. During this time period, Petitioner observed the two police officers, Ms. Catena, and the other unidentified woman, as they approached each African-American person who entered the lobby and asked whether they were with the Boss-Williams reunion. Petitioner observed that the police officers and Resort managers did not stop any non-African-American persons. Petitioner contacted a Westgate resort property in Orlando and was able to secure rooms for the family members who were evicted from the Resort. Respondent provided Petitioner no reason for canceling her Resort reservation and evicting her family from the premises. Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Commission on January 3, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the most recent date of discrimination was June 22, 2011. In a related case, the undersigned has found that some members of Petitioner’s family timely filed complaints of discrimination related to and arising out of the same incidents as those alleged by Petitioner. See Harrington v. Eve Management, Inc., Case No. 14-0029 (Fla. DOAH May 28, 2014). The undersigned, sua sponte, officially recognizes the Recommended Order in that matter, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(6).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order: Finding that Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., committed an act of public accommodation discrimination in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011), against Petitioner Denise Strickland; and Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Willie L. Glover, is a black male, who worked in housekeeping for St. Leo College in San Antonio, Florida, for approximately 30 years. For over 20 years, he was the supervisor of housekeeping for St. Leo. Starting July 1, 1989, St. Leo contracted housekeeping and certain other related functions to the Respondent, Marriott Corporation. The Petitioner, like the other former St. Leo employees, were allowed to stay in the approximate Marriott equivalent of their former positions on probationary status and were required to learn the Marriott way of doing things. It was understood that, within the 90 day probation period, Marriott was authorized to terminate former St. Leo employees who did not measure up to Marriott standards. Marriott put the Petitioner in the position of director of Marriott's Environmental Services Department at St. Leo. This position had some of the attributes of the Petitioner's former position but also had some additional requirements. Marriott quickly perceived that the Petitioner was weak in the area of written communication, a required job skill that Marriott emphasized more than St. Leo had in the Petitioner's former position. Marriott decided early on that it would have to send the Petitioner to school for training in written communications. As part of Marriott's reorganization of functions at St. Leo's, Marriott began a process of moving all supervisory personnel to central Marriott offices. The Petitioner was moved out of his old private office adjacent to one of the dormitory buildings and into the central Marriott offices where he shared an office, with telephone, with another supervisor. The Petitioner perceived this move as a demotion of sorts and dragged his feet in actually physically moving to and using the new offices. Later, the Petitioner perceived the move as an attempt by Marriott to force the Petitioner to quit. The evidence in the case did not prove that these perceptions were true. Within a month or two of July 1, 1989, Marriott Corporation received several complaints about the Petitioner and how he performed as supervisor of housekeeping. One substantiated complaint was that two dormitory buildings, which were supposed to be prepared for occupancy for a summer camp session beginning July 20, 1989, were not ready as of July 19. The Petitioner, in discussion with other housekeeping employees, but not with the Marriott managerial staff, blamed the situation on Marriott's all-out effort to beautify one of the other dormitories for the start of the fall college term. A few days before, a Marriott training consultant began training sessions for all housekeeping personnel, including the Petitioner. The training consultant had all of the housekeeping crew, including the Petitioner, working on the beautification project. During training, the Petitioner contends that he and the others viewed the trainer as "the boss" and that he did not think he had the authority to do what was necessary to get ready for the summer camp session. However, some of the work readying one of the buildings for the summer camp session should have been done before the training consultant even arrived, and there is no evidence that the training consultant knew or should have been expected to know the scheduling requirements for the summer camp session. The Petitioner was aware of the scheduling requirements for the summer camp session, and Marriott expected the Petitioner to be in charge of scheduling the housekeeping crew so as to make sure that all deadlines were met, not just the beautification project for the fall session. The Petitioner was reprimanded for not attending to the dormitories needed for the summer camp session and was ordered to get the work done immediately. Marriott also received several complaints from workers under the Petitioner to the effect that he swore at them, verbally abused them and generally did not treat them properly. Although the workers were telling the truth, the Petitioner denied the allegations. On September 14, 1989, Marriott decided that the Petitioner was not qualified to perform the functions Marriott would require of its director of Environmental Services at St. Leo and fired him. There were no other positions available on St. Leo's housekeeping staff at the time. The Petitioner was 61 years old at the time he was fired. The evidence did not prove that Marriott fired him because of his age. There was no evidence as to the age of the Petitioner's replacement, or any of the other employees except one. The Petitioner's assistant, who had 17 years experience at St. Leo, was age 38. He was fired before the Petitioner was. One of the other employees had 20 years experience at St. Leo. Her age was not revealed. She still is employed by Marriott. No credence is given to the Petitioner's testimony that his supervisor told him not to consider any "old men" for hiring on the housekeeping staff. Besides, it is not clear from the testimony exactly what the Petitioner's supervisor allegedly was attempting to communicate to the Petitioner, and it is not clear what impact this communication allegedly had on the Petitioner. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner was fired because he is black. There was no evidence as to the race of the Petitioner's replacement. Of the housekeeping employees and former employees who testified at the hearing, all were black. When Marriott took over, it created a new night shift and promoted a black woman to supervisor of the night shift. A good part of the Petitioner's case was directed to his contention that the Petitioner was targeted for firing because Marriott wanted to avoid the financial consequences of assuming the retirement obligations owed by St. Leo College to an employee with as many years towards retirement as the Petitioner had. 1/ To the contrary, the clear evidence was that Marriott did not assume the retirement obligations owed by St. Leo College to the former St. Leo employees. St. Leo paid out retirement benefits to those entitled to them as of June 30, 1989. The employees receiving retirement benefits from St. Leo included the Petitioner, who has received retirement benefit payments of approximately $200 a month since the start of Marriott's contract to do the housekeeping at St. Leo. On or about October 27, 1989, the Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. The Charge of Discrimination was against St. Leo College and alleged that St. Leo denied him reemployment in housekeeping because of race. There was no evidence of any charge filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, any charge against the Marriott Corporation, or any charge alleging that the Petitioner was fired because of age or race, until the Charge of Discrimination initiating this proceeding was filed on or about April 19, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on his gender.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a staffing company that provides temporary employees to a variety of customers/employers. Respondent performs workforce management for its customers, including hiring personnel, providing new-employee orientation, and conducting ongoing training after the initial hire. Respondent provides its employees with harassment-free workplace training as part of the initial orientation. Thereafter, Respondent provides the harassment-free workplace training on an annual basis and more frequently at the request of its customers. Petitioner is a white male who worked as a temporary employee for Respondent on two occasions: from May 17, 1993, through July 27, 1996, and from June 30, 1997, through July 28, 2003. On both occasions, Respondent assigned Petitioner to perform maintenance work at the Island House Hotel in Orange Beach, Alabama. Petitioner was a maintenance technician at the Island House Hotel until Respondent promoted him to the position of Assistant Supervisor of Maintenance in 1998. Respondent promoted Petitioner to the management position of Chief Engineer in 1999. As Chief Engineer, Petitioner supervised five or six maintenance technicians. Petitioner received a salary but often worked more than a 40-hour week. For instance, Petitioner would stay at the hotel during hurricanes instead of going home to be with his family. At all times relevant here, Petitioner was aware of Respondent's written "Harassment-Free Workplace Policy." The policy defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature where an employee feels compelled to comply with the harassment as part of job betterment, or where the harassment interferes with an employee's work creating an intimidating or hostile work environment." The policy lists examples of sexual harassment, including unwelcome physical contact, request for sexual favors, and/or displays of a sexual nature. Respondent's Harassment-Free Workplace Policy goes on to discuss other types of discriminatory conduct. Specifically, the policy prohibits discrimination, such as intimidation or ridicule based on gender, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, religion, disability, veteran status, or any other basis that creates an offensive work environment, or which results in an unfavorable job action. The policy lists verbal or written jokes or offensive comments based on race, sex, etc., as examples of discriminatory conduct. Respondent's Harassment-Free Workplace Policy advises employees, whether a victim or a witness, to report all incidents of discrimination or harassment. Respondent instructs its employees to report such complaints to their manager, their local office staffing specialist, and/or Respondent's corporate office, using a toll-free employee hot line. Petitioner had a good professional and personal relationship with Respondent's employees who were assigned management positions at the Island House Hotel. Specifically, Petitioner was friends with the following employees: (a) Barbara Walters, General Manager; (b) Glenn Johnson, Director of Operations; and (c) Margaret Lathan, Director of Housekeeping. Petitioner and Ms. Walters occasionally shared off- color jokes with each other. Sometimes they laughed about jokes with sexual connotations that one of them had copied from the Internet. On at least one occasion, Ms. Walters and Petitioner discussed hotel guests who were wearing bathing suits at the pool. There is no evidence that Petitioner was ever offended by the jokes; he never complained to Respondent about the jokes. Ms. Walters personally was not offended by the jokes. In time, however, she became concerned that Petitioner's jokes and comments to employees other than herself were no longer appropriate in the workplace. Eventually, Ms. Walters began to verbally counsel Petitioner to clean up his language and to be careful of his remarks to other employees because they might consider them offensive. Petitioner and Ms. Latham also enjoyed sharing jokes of a sexual nature with each other. On one occasion, Ms. Latham gave Petitioner a T-shirt when she returned from vacation. The back of the shirt had pictures of ladies’ butts wearing bikinis. There is no evidence that Petitioner found the shirt offensive; he never complained to Respondent or anyone else about the T-shirt. On or about June 23, 2001, Ms. Walters wrote a note to Petitioner. Ms. Walters requested that Ms. McDowell place the note in Petitioner's personnel file. The note stated as follows: After our conversation on Wednesday, I thought we had cleared up my concerns with you. Today I discover that your "blond" lady that does awnings was in your office yesterday and that you allowed her to accompany you to repair the washer in the laundry. This is totally unacceptable and violates Hotel policy and safety issues. I do not expect you as a manager to have outside vendors in areas that they are not here to inspect, study, or to prepare estimates for. I will not discuss this any further with you. Ms. Walters would have written the above-referenced note if Petitioner had invited an unauthorized male to accompany him into a secure area. However, Ms. Walters was especially concerned because the incident involved a female. On at least two occasions, Ms. Walters made special requests for Respondent to conduct a class to review Respondent's harassment policy with her management team. She made these requests because her management team consisted of members who were of various ages. Ms. Walters wanted to make sure that the management team was aware that times had changed, and that conduct, which had been acceptable years ago, was no longer acceptable in today's workplace. At the request of Ms. Walters, Respondent's staffing specialist, Martina McDowell, conducted a class on Respondent's harassment policy at the Island House Hotel on January 31, 2002. Petitioner, Ms. Walters, and Ms. Latham attended the class. During the January 2003 class, Petitioner received a copy of Respondent's Harassment-Free Workplace Policy. He signed a statement acknowledging that he had read and understood the policy, including the procedure to report violations. On February 14, 2002, Petitioner signed a copy of Respondent's "New Employee Orientation Guidelines: Policy & Procedures." This document includes Respondent's discrimination and harassment policies, which Petitioner initialed. Ms. McDowell signed the document under Petitioner's signature. In the last year of Petitioner's employment at the Island House Hotel, Ms. Walters realized Petitioner was under stress in his personal life. She also noticed a change in his behavior at work. Ms. Walters felt that Petitioner's jokes and other attempts to be humorous became more intense. Ms. Walters was so concerned that she requested Ms. McDowell to counsel Petitioner on more than one occasion. During the counseling sessions, Ms. McDowell advised Petitioner that off-color jokes were not accepted in the workplace. Ms. McDowell also told Petitioner that flirting with female co-workers was inappropriate and would be considered as sexual harassment under Respondent's policy. Respondent does not provide the Island House Hotel with employees to perform housekeeping duties. Island House Hotel contracts with a company by the name of TIDY for housekeeping services. Ms. Latham, as Director of Housekeeping, does not supervise TIDY's housekeepers directly. Instead, she interacts with TIDY's supervisors to ensure that the housekeeping duties are performed. One of TIDY's housekeepers was a young female named April. She began working at Island House Hotel on or about July 23, 2003. On Friday, July 25, 2003, Petitioner grabbed and jiggled his private parts as he walked down the hall to the elevator at the Island House Hotel. April, Ms. Latham, and a porter named Alan Hoffman, were standing at the elevator. Ms. Latham observed Petitioner's conduct and considered it offensive. Ms. Latham could tell that Petitioner's inappropriate behavior embarrassed April. On Saturday, July 26, 2003, Ms. Walters was working at the Island House Hotel when she learned that a young man was at the front desk. The young man wanted to speak to Ms. Walters privately. Therefore, Ms. Walters invited the young man to go with her to the sales office. During the conversation, the young man complained to Ms. Walters that an older gentleman named Ben, who worked at the hotel, had made inappropriate gestures to his fianceé, April. Specifically, the young man alleged that Ben had grabbed his private parts and jiggled them in front of April, who was offended by such behavior. Ms. Walters talked to Ms. Latham after the young man left the hotel. Ms. Latham confirmed that she had witnessed Petitioner grabbing his private parts in front of April. Immediately after talking to Ms. Latham, Ms. Walters called Respondent's branch manager, Sherry Moore. Ms. Walters told Ms. Moore that Respondent needed to release Petitioner from his assignment at Island House Hotel. Ms. Moore contacted Ms. McDowell by telephone. Ms. Moore instructed Ms. McDowell to contact Petitioner and instruct him to report to Respondent's office in Gulfport, Florida, on July 28, 2003. On Sunday, July 27, 2003, Ms. McDowell contacted Petitioner. Ms. McDowell told Petitioner to report to her office the next day instead of returning to work at Island House Hotel. On Monday, July 28, 2003, Petitioner met Ms McDowell at her office. Ms. McDowell explained that Respondent had received a sexual harassment complaint involving his behavior. Petitioner's initial reaction was to state that he had talked to the little girl and that she was okay with his apology. The little girl that Petitioner referred to was not April. Petitioner's initial statement in Ms. McDowell's office related to an incident involving a female employee of the hotel's beach service. Ms. McDowell informed Petitioner that the complaint involved a housekeeper. After explaining the allegations against him, Ms. McDowell relieved Petitioner of his work assignment at Island House Hotel. Petitioner became angry, stating as follows: "Well, if Ms. Walters was going down the hallway and her ass was itching and she scratched it, would you fire her too?" Ms. McDowell responded that she was dealing only with a complaint brought against him, where another employee had witnessed his conduct. Ms. McDowell did not tell Petitioner that he was terminated as one of Respondent's temporary employees. Respondent's policy requires employees to make themselves available for work assignments. Employees are supposed to contact Respondent within 48 hours of the time that a work assignment ends if they are available for another job. Thereafter, employees are required to contact Respondent on a weekly basis. Petitioner did not follow Respondent's policy in this regard. In any event, Ms. McDowell conducted a follow-up investigation. The investigation included interviews with Ms. Walters, Ms. Latham, and Mr. Hoffman. Ms. McDowell was unable to talk to April who never returned to work. After completing her investigation, Ms. McDowell considered Petitioner's employment terminated. On or about November 21, 2003, Ms. McDowell requested that Ms. Latham make a written statement regarding the July 25, 2003, incident. Ms. Latham made the following statement: April (housekeeper), Alan (porter) and myself were standing by the elevator when Ben Torres came down the hall and grabbed his privates. Ben might not have realized April was standing there, he made these gestures all the time and I told him many times, that one of these days he will do it in front of the wrong person and get in trouble. Most of the housekeepers knew how he was and just ignored his behavior. Respondent did not hire another Chief Engineer to replace Petitioner. Instead, Respondent assigned the duties of Chief Engineer to Glenn Johnson, the Director of Operations at the Island House Hotel. Mr. Johnson is a white male.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Debra Dawn Cooper, Esquire Debra D. Cooper, Attorney 309 West Gregory Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Jane M. Rolling, Esquire 5301 North Ironwood Road Post Office Box 2053 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
